Protected Area Management Effectiveness Assessment: Thanda Private Game Reserve & Mduna Royal Reserve June 2012
Protected Area
Management Effectiveness
Assessment:
Thanda Private Game Reserve &
Mduna Royal Reserve
June 2012
2
Map 1. Location of Thanda Private Game Reserve and Mduna Royal Reserve.
3
Protected Area Management Effectiveness
Assessment: Thanda Private Game Reserve and
Mduna Royal Reserve
Assessment Date: 29th
February 2012
Background and Introduction
Protected areas are amongst the most efficient and cost-effective ways of conserving
biodiversity (Balmford, Leader-Williams & Green 1995) and are therefore central to
most conservation strategies (Hockings 2003). The global protected area estate has
increased significantly over the past decade, numbering c. 114,000 and covering
some 12% of the Earth’s surface (or almost 20 million km2), making protected areas
the world’s largest planned form of land use (The Nature Conservancy 2008; CBD
2010; Dudley et al. 2010). Despite this major conservation success story, the current
system of protected areas is not representative of all biomes and species requiring
protection. Furthermore, protected areas are facing a barrage of increasing
pressures and threats such as habitat loss, fragmentation, isolation, poverty,
unsustainable exploitation, invasive species, lack of capacity, inappropriate policies
and incentives, the inequitable distribution of costs and benefits, globalization,
security and global change. This suite of external and internal pressures is impacting
significantly on the conservation community’s ability to effectively manage their
conservation estate thereby undermining its overall contribution to biodiversity
conservation (CBD 2010).
Management effectiveness is defined by the IUCN’s World Commission on Protected
Areas (WCPAs) as the assessment of how well a protected area is being managed -
primarily the extent to which it is protecting values and achieving goals and
objectives (Hockings, Stolton & Dudley 2000; Hockings et al. 2006). Such assessments
have generally looked at four areas: protected area design (both individual sites and
systems), appropriateness of management systems and processes, delivery of
objectives (Ervin 2003a; Hockings 2003) and ecological integrity (Ervin 2003b;
Parrish, Braun & Unnasch 2003). If applied broadly across an entire organization,
protected area management effectiveness assessments can enable policymakers to
refine their conservation strategies, re-allocate budget expenditures, and develop
strategic, system-wide responses to the most pervasive threats and management
4
weaknesses (Ervin 2003b). Protected area management effectiveness assessments
are therefore not performance assessments of an individual; rather they serve to
reflect a conservation authority’s proficiency for protected area management as a
whole (Carbutt & Goodman 2010).
Aims
The management team of the privately owned Thanda Private Game Reserve (TPGR)
and Mduna Royal Reserve (MRR) requested that TPGR and MRR be assessed for its
management effectiveness, which is a diagnostic assessment that will highlight areas
relating to PA management that require improving.
• To ensure that TPGR and MRR are effectively managed.
Management of the Thanda Group (Pty) Ltd may wish to compare their effectiveness
score against a minimum standard of management effectiveness; the provincial
(State-adopted) minimum standard score is 72% effectiveness, whilst alternatively
the national (State-adopted) minimum standard score is 68% effectiveness set
thought the Outcomes 10 strategic reporting framework.
Methods
Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool
The assessment tool used was essentially a refinement (for the KZN context) of the
Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) developed by WWF and the World
Bank in 2007 (see Hockings et al. 2000; Hockings et al. 2006). The METT is a rapid,
site-level, qualitative assessment tool based on an expert scoring approach (Hockings
et al. 2006) that assesses all six elements of PA management identified in the WCPA
framework (see Hockings et al. 2000; Hockings 2003), namely establishing the
context of existing values and threats, followed by adequate planning and the
allocation of adequate resources (inputs), and as a result of management actions
(processes), eventually produces products (outputs) that result in impacts that can
be measured against set objectives (outcomes).
The assessment was carried out as a mini-workshop on the 29th
February 2012. The
assessment was interactive and was subject to peer review and moderation. The
workshop commenced with a briefing (broad introduction, overview of aims and
methodologies) and ended with a debriefing on the way forward. The workshop
comprised three components: (1) a cover sheet which captured details of the PA
5
such as size (area), number of staff, annual operational budget, primary
management objectives, PA values etc.; (2) the assessment form proper; and (3) an
analysis of pressures and threats.
Pressures and threats assessment
Given that the METT is weak in its assessment of pressures and threats, use was
made of the WWF Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of PA Management
(RAPPAM) tool’s pressure and threats assessment (Ervin 2003c), which effectively
quantifies the total pressures and threats faced by the PA under assessment.
Pressures are extrinsic forces, activities, or events that have already had a detrimental
impact on the integrity of the management or protected area over the past five years
(i.e. that have diminished biological diversity, inhibited regenerative capacity, and/or
impoverished the area’s natural resources). Pressures include both legal and illegal
activities, and may result from direct and indirect impacts of an activity. Threats are
potential or impending extrinsic pressures in which a detrimental impact is likely to
occur or continue to occur in the future, over the next five years (Ervin 2003c). Both
pressures and threats were quantified for TPGR and MRR. This entailed a qualitative
assessment of up to a maximum of 22 pre-identified (‘generic’) pressures and threats.
To quantify each relevant pressure and threat, Thanda management had to assign a
value ranging from 4 (highest) to 1 (lowest) that best reflects the extent, impact and
permanence of each identified pressure and threat. The degree of pressure and threat
was determined by calculating extent x impact x permanence; the maximum degree of
pressure/threat for each identified pressure/threat is therefore 64 (i.e. 4 x 4 x 4), which
is rated as being ‘severe’ whilst the minimum degree of pressure/threat is one, which is
rated as being ‘mild’. The total degree of pressure and the total degree of threat was
determined by summing all individual pressure and threat scores respectively. The
maximum potential score is this regard is 1408 (i.e. 22 pressures/threats x 64), whilst
the minimum score is zero. It is important to note that any pressures and threats
assessment is perception-based.
Results and Discussion
The effectiveness score for TPGR and MRR determined through this assessment cycle
is 66% effectiveness, which is some 6% short of the provincial minimum standard
and some 2% short of the national minimum standard (Figure 1).
6
It appears that only one previous assessment was undertaken for TPGR (in 2011),
with the result being 71% effectiveness (Figure 1). Possible reasons for the disparity
in scores include: the assessment tools are not completely aligned (the METT used in
this assessment is more comprehensive and detailed, offering a far wider range of
questions than the previous assessment employed); and the peer review dynamic
was applied with greater effectiveness in this assessment.
The score for TPGR and MRR (66% effectiveness) is greater than the mean score
(53% effectiveness) for 66 state-managed terrestrial PAs in KZN assessed in 2009
(Carbutt & Goodman 2010) as well as greater than the mean score of 53%
effectiveness for the 2384 PAs assessed in a global study by Leverington et al. (2008).
However, Leverington et al. (2008) regard ‘sound protected area management’ when
PAs score 68% or more effectiveness. Anything less is regarded as ‘basic
management with significant deficiencies’.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2011 2012
Eff
ecti
ven
ess S
co
re (
%)
Previous Assessment
Current Assessment
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2011 2012
Eff
ecti
ven
ess S
co
re (
%)
Previous Assessment
Current Assessment
Figure 1. Management effectiveness scores for TPGR and MRR for the current (2012)
and previous (2011) management effectiveness assessments. The solid black denotes
the provincial minimum standard of 72% and the dotted black line denotes the
national standard of 68% effectiveness.
TPGR and MRR are well resourced; the PAME score is not linked to budget
constraints. In terms of this assessment, the ‘context’ aspects of protected area
7
management (legal status; boundary demarcation; biodiversity and cultural heritage
knowledge and understanding) scored poorly (Figure 2). However, the lowest scoring
aspect of protected area management in this assessment was ‘planning’ (Figure 2).
The planning component incorporates protected area design (size and shape),
buffers, management and education plans, and land- and water-use planning in
collaboration with the relevant authorities, municipalities and stakeholders.
Protected area planning in the context of TPGR and MRR should continue to seek
opportunities for the development of buffers around, and linkages to, other
protected areas. The interventions required to address shortcomings in such
categories are often difficult and long-term in nature, and are often out of the hands
of day-to-day management. This means that while ongoing and daily PA
management practices are being undertaken with good proficiency (see the
relatively higher scores under ‘inputs’, ‘processes’ and ‘outputs’), the context in
which these activities are taking place is not well defined.
0
20
40
60
80
PA Pla
nning
PA Conte
xt
PA Outp
uts
PA Inputs
PA Outc
omes
PA Pro
cess
Category of PA Management
Eff
ecti
ven
ess S
co
re (
%)
Figure 2. Management effectiveness scores for TPGR and MRR for the current (2012)
management effectiveness assessment broken down per PA management category.
Pressures and threats assessment
Some 22 pressures and/or threats were identified as activities or events that either
are, or may in the future, have a detrimental impact on the ecological integrity of
TPGR and MRR. The ‘top eight’ pressures in TPGR and MRR (many of which are also
the most significant threats) are climate change; dam building; natural resource use;
8
poaching; purposeful species eradication; transportation corridors; alien plants and
land-use change which collectively account for c. 91% of the total pressures
experienced (Figure 3). It is important to note that invasion of alien organisms and
climate change is inextricably linked. The total pressures faced by TPGR and MRR
amount to 238. The threats analysis is more difficult to interpret as many of the
individual threats were evaluated as ‘unknowns’. In light of this, the (low) total
threat count of 111 should be viewed with caution.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Clim
ate
chan
ge
Dam
build
ing
Nat
ural r
esou
rce
use
Poa
chin
g
Spe
cies
era
dicat
ion
Transp
ortat
ion c
orrid
ors
Alie
n pla
nts
Land-u
se c
hange
Ars
on fi
res
Sol
id w
aste
Ero
sion
Alie
n anim
als
Bus
h encr
oachm
ent
Dis
ease
- ex
otic
Dis
ease
- na
tive
Land in
vasi
on
Min
ing
and
ener
gy
PA is
olatio
n
Pollu
tion
Siltat
ion
Touris
m
Vandal
ism
of c
ultura
l ass
ets
Pressure/Threat
Mean
Sco
re (
Exte
nt
x Im
pact
x P
erm
an
en
ce)
Pressure Threat
Figure 3. The pressures and threats perceived by Thanda management. The lack of a
threat score adjacent to a pressure score is due to the ‘unknown’ factor associated
with the threat.
Threats to protected areas remain numerous and serious according to the global
assessment of management effectiveness, and should receive adequate attention if
the values of the protected areas are to be conserved (Leverington et al. 2008). The
pressures and threats assessment undertaken in this study affirms the global
sentiment. The most pervasive and widespread threats identified globally are alien
plant invasion, poaching of animals and non-timber forest products, encroachment
of adjacent lands, tourism (recreational activities) and logging (Ervin 2003b;
Leverington et al. 2008).
9
Conclusion: the value of management effectiveness
assessments
Protected area management effectiveness assessments are being used with an ever
increasing frequency by conservation management in an attempt to improve the
level of protected area management effectiveness, and by so doing increase the
likelihood of conserving the biodiversity features for which the protected areas were
established and the values for which they exist (Ervin 2003b; Parrish et al. 2003;
Leverington et al. 2008). Protected area management effectiveness assessments can
also provide useful information for assessing and tracking change in both protected
areas and the wider environment, and can provide information to serve as an early
warning system for environmental challenges, to recognize and replicate
conservation successes, and to enable effective responses to this change.
Furthermore, protected area management effectiveness assessments increase the
transparency and accountability of protected area management, thus assisting in
cooperative management and enhancing community support. It can also provide a
more logical and transparent basis for planning and for allocating resources. At the
same time there is increasing interest by governments, management agencies, non-
governmental organizations and others to develop and apply systems to assess
management effectiveness in protected areas (IUCN 2004). Assessing management
effectiveness is a vital component of adaptive and cooperative management, where
managers are stakeholders work together and learn from experience (IUCN 2004).
Increasingly, the results of such assessments are being used as lobbying and
advocacy tools to increase government funding and public support for protected
areas (Lemos de Sá, Bensusan & Ferreira 2000), revise budget allocations and
spending priorities (Goodman 2003a; Goodman 2003b), and promote governmental
transparency and accountability (Tsering 2003). Such steps may ultimately be as
important for the long-term success of protected areas as improving management
practices on the ground (Ervin 2003b).
Recommendations
The main interventions required to improve management effectiveness lie in the
categories of PA context and planning:
• Proclamation of TPGR and MRR as a nature reserve (such security under the
Protected Areas Act may help mitigate threats such as mining);
10
• Gathering more critical information on priority biodiversity elements;
• Updating the outdated management plan to include biodiversity targets,
action projects, zonation plan, staff establishment, annual work plan and goal
setting exercise; a schedule for the periodic review of the management plan;
improving the maintenance of ecological processes; and documenting all
cultural heritage assets;
• External (beyond the PA boundary) engagements with the authorities
responsible for land- and water-use planning (e.g. Department of Water
Affairs; Local and District Municipalities);
• The main aim of protected area management effectiveness (PAME) is to re-
assess management effectiveness on an annual basis to try and achieve a
steady improvement (upward trajectory) in PAME. This assessment should
therefore become the baseline against which all other assessments should be
compared using the current assessment tool as the standard reference.
These should become ‘action projects’ which should be captured in the (pending)
management plan for further attention.
References
Balmford, A., Leader-Williams, N. & Green, J.B. 1995. Parks or arks: where to
conserve large threatened mammals. Biodiversity and Conservation, 4, 595-
607.
Carbutt, C. & Goodman, P.S. 2010. Assessing the Management Effectiveness of
State-owned, Land-based Protected Areas in KwaZulu-Natal. Ezemvelo KZN
Wildlife unpublished report, Pietermaritzburg.
Convention on Biological Diversity. 2010. Programme of Work on Protected Areas.
Accessed on the 13th
January 2010 at http:www.cbd.int/protected/pow/.
Dudley, N., Parrish, J.D., Redford, K.H. & Stolton, S. 2010. The revised IUCN
protected area management categories: the debate and ways forward. Oryx,
44(4), 485-490.
Ervin, J. 2003a. Protected area assessments in perspective. BioScience, 53(9), 819-
822.
Ervin, J. 2003b. Rapid assessment of Protected Area management effectiveness in
four countries. BioScience, 53(9), 833-841.
Ervin, J. 2003c. WWF: Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area
Management (RAPPAM) Methodology. WWF Forests for Life Programme,
Gland, Switzerland.
11
Goodman, P.S. 2003a. South Africa: Management effectiveness assessment of
Protected Areas in KwaZulu-Natal using WWF’s RAPPAM Methodology.
WWF International, Gland, Switzerland, pp. 1-29.
Goodman, P.S. 2003b. Assessing management effectiveness and setting priorities in
protected areas in KwaZulu-Natal. BioScience, 53(9), 843-850.
Hockings, M. 2003. Systems for assessing the effectiveness of management in
protected areas. BioScience, 53(9), 823-832.
Hockings, M., Stolton, S. & Dudley, N. 2000. Evaluating effectiveness: a framework
for assessing the management of Protected Areas. WCPA Best Practice
Protected Area Guideline Series No. 6. IUCN, Gland Switzerland, pp. 1-121.
Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Leverington, F., Dudley, N. & Courrau, J. 2006. Assessing
effectiveness – a framework for assessing management effectiveness of
protected areas (2nd
edition), IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
IUCN. 2004. IUCN 5th
World Parks Congress. Accessed on the 13th
January 2010 at
http:www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/pa/pa_event/wcpa/wpc/.
Lemos de Sá, R., Bensusan, N. & Ferreira, L. 2000. NGOs and PA management
agencies working together to assess Protected Area effectiveness. Successes,
problems and prospects - the experience of Brazil. WWF International, Gland,
Switzerland.
Leverington, F., Hockings, M. & Costa, K.L. 2008. Management effectiveness
evaluation in protected areas - a global study. Report for the project ‘Global
study into management effectiveness evaluation of protected areas’. The
University of Queensland, Gatton, IUCN, WCPA, TNC and WWF, Australia,
pp. 1-70.
Parrish, J.D., Braun, D.P. & Unnasch, R.S. 2003. Are we conserving what we say we
are? Measuring ecological integrity within Protected Areas. BioScience, 53(9),
851-860.
The Nature Conservancy. 2008. Assessing Protected Area management effectiveness:
a quick guide for protected area practitioners.
Tsering, K. 2003. Bhutan case study - evaluation of management effectiveness in four
Protected Areas. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland.
WWF and the World Bank. 2007. Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool:
reporting progress at protected area sites (2nd
edition).